However, this is her first stop in the Buckeye State since before Labor Day, and media coverage over the past few days has hinted that Clinton may be writing off the long-time political bellweather state.
Notably, left-leaning media appears to be treating the development as sour grapes.
On Monday, one article appeared in TIME magazine and one was published by the AP, both dismissing Hillary's need for Ohio in her campaign's electoral college calculus. Things have "changed," apparently:
Ohio has long basked in the presidential spotlight. Every four years, fall would bring frequent candidate visits, ceaseless television commercials and breathless, county-by-county tallies of its voting returns late into election night. Democrats in the state became used to rock-concert-style rallies, like the ones John Kerry staged in Cleveland and Columbus with Bruce Springsteen in 2004 and President Obama held at Ohio State to kick off his 2012 re-election campaign. Mr. Obama held five events over three trips to Ohio in September 2012 alone.
And it was all for good reason: No candidate of either party has won the White House without carrying Ohio since John F. Kennedy in 1960.
But its Rust Belt profile, Mr. Trump’s unyielding anti-trade campaign and Mrs. Clinton’s difficulty energizing Ohio’s young voters have made it a lesser focus for Democrats this year, even as it remains critical to Mr. Trump’s path to the White House. As Mrs. Clinton’s aides privately note, the demographic makeup of Florida, Colorado and North Carolina, which have a greater percentage of educated or nonwhite voters, makes those states more promising for Democrats in a contest in which the electorate is sorted along bright racial and economic lines.
